i am now convinced Thomas Hearns was the greatest ever!

And although Evander was old when James beat him, he's still the only person to ever stop him.

And although James was getting a great second win at that point of his career, he was old and his best days seemed like a long time ago.

 

Course Hagler beat him fair and square. Did he break Hearns' finger illegally? Unless taking another man's punch to your head is illegal in boxing then the answer has to be 'No'. It wouldn't have mattered anyway. There was no way that fight would go the distance and if Hearns' best shot couldn't do more than stun Hagler, there was no way Tommy could have stopped him.

And Hearns didn't really establish superiority over Leonard in 1989. Leonard had fought twice in the last 5 years by that point and still got a draw which wasn't really that controversial. Yes, Hearns scored two knockdowns but Ray never looked really badly shaken whereas Tommy, in the 5th and 12th, looked ready to go and was a little fortunate not to get docked a point for holding. If you judge them in their primes when they first fought in '81, Ray proved himself the better fighter and knocked Tommy out. Don't take my word for it, if you don't believe me. Have a listen to Tommy's interview after the fight.

 

Because it's actually became a very legendary saying? Even Ray himself said that if Angelo didn't say that he'd have lost.

 

So what? It doesn't change what Ray physically did. Being able to listen to advice and take it is surely a plus for a fighter. You can't mark a fighter down because his trainer offered sound advice.

If Angelo had jumped in the ring and belted Tommy, I would agree that would detract from Ray's win. Giving good advice in the corner, however, is expected of trainers. Whether the fighter is good enough to act on it is another matter and entirely down to the fighter once the bell rings.

 

Now we're trying to take a little away from SRL victory because, wait for it...., he listened to his corners sound advice? Desperate much?

 

Do you honestly believe Hearns is a greater fighter than Sugar Ray Robinson?

I love the Hitman, but Ray RObinson was truly the perfect fighter. He could do everything in the ring and employ any tactic he wanted to. It was almost always dependent on what he felt like doing inside the ring. At 147 lbs, the man was invincible and outside of a few fighters he wasn't able to meet up with (Cocoa Kid, Burley,) he took on essentially all comers and dominated the competition.

Leading up to around his 130th fight, his only pro loss at that point was against Lamotta when Jake fought him as a full fledged MW.

Luckily more footage of Robinson is starting to surface from his ACTUAL prime in the mid to late 1940's. He was the most artistic fighter and arguably the most complete fighter in the history of the sport.

 

What advice did Manny Steward give Hearns in the corner at that stage of the fight?

 

I can recall reading Angelo Dundee state that if Tommy had great balance he beats them all.....

 

He likely was but Hearns had the power to seriously test that theory.

 

I agree...balance and better recuperative powers. That was something Robinson and Ali and even Leonard had in spades.

 

I am afraid if you have not been swayed by the plethora of logical arguments in this thread, you will be stuck in your subjective reality on this issue. It is unfortunate. It is important to rise above subjective feelings if you want to be able to accurately assess issues on this forum.

When I first saw this thread title, I thought you were trolling.

No boxing expert objectively thinks Thomas Hearns is the greatest Boxer of all time.

You can make excuses until the cows come home but,

Sugar Ray Leonard KO 14 Thomas Hearns
Marvin Hagler KO 3 Thomas Hearns
Iran Barkely Ko 3 Thomas Hearns

Hearns had a below average chin, poor balance, lacked physical strength on the inside, had stamina issues at times and had a very mediocre defense once his mammoth reach was penetrated. He was so freakish in terms of height and reach, that it wasn't penetrated too often. But, when it was by an elite fighter (or non-elite in Barkely and Kinchen) with power, he was in trouble.

 

That still doesn't mean he couldn't beat the man regarded as the best fighter of all time if they met however unlikely that is.

 

You're also ignoring the fact that 'Hearns' famous right hand' failed to knock out Ernie Singletary, Luigi Minchillo, Murray Sutherland, Benitez, DeWitt let alone anyone of Hagler's proven durability. In fact, after he fought Leonard, Hearns had only stopped half of his opponents before he faced Hagler. Don't make out that whatever Tommy hit would fall because every bit of evidence suggests otherwise. And if he did more than stun Marvin, I didn't see it. Did Marvin go down? Did his knees buckle? Did he take a backward step for more than a second? Feel free to share a link.

If anyone is being 'vastly overrated', it's Hearns - albeit only by you. If MMH did duck Hearns, he probably took on just as fearsome puncher in Mugabi. Marvin clearly hadn't quite got the hang of what it was to duck a dangerous fighter. The reason the rematch didn't happen may have had something to do with the fact that when Hagler and Hearns did fight, Tommy was carried out of the ring after eight minutes. There probably wasn't much of a public clamour to see it again.

I have looked at Hagler's opposition, all full middleweights whom he usually fought in their own backyard. He won the title in a poisonous, hostile environment (Tommy won his first title in his hometown) and defended for nearly 7 years making 12 defences. I love Tommy but that stacks up very well compared to his record.

I also don't put too much store in what Leonard said after the second fight. Duran said the only reason Hearns beat him was because he hadn't trained so, by your logic, we should discount that performance by Tommy. Ray was probably playing the PR game but, even if he wasn't, it was his 3rd fight in five years and he gave Tommy hell. I judge them on their first fight when each was in his prime. It was scheduled for 15 rounds and Leonard knocked him out of the ring in the 14th. Only one man ever looked like hurting the other in that fight and it was Leonard - on several occasions.

I feel bad as I have been critical of Tommy and I genuinely really like him. Wouldn't it be better for all of us Hearns fans if we just said he was a great fighter, fantastic to watch and one of the genuine all time greats rather than make a claim of him being the P4P best ever that, given the defeats on his record, just doesn't hold any water whatsoever?